Signature sizing Beta Test

Dav

This is the thread for users of the Beta Skin to post their thoughts or findings on our test of signature size limits.

Curious? Then switch to the Beta Skin (see the drop down list at bottom left of the page) and read the notice.

Dav

ShooterSF

Seems good. Could be a bit overwhelming if there's scroll bar after scroll bar but its an improvement!

I heart beta

Wolfe Tone

I haven't noticed anything yet.

Overheal

I would test this by putting longcat in my signature... but that still seems like a terrible idea.

Wolfe Tone

Oh yes, I see it now, seems good. I had to venture out of the politics forum. Is my sig ok? I hope so, I spent a while resizing those pics.

5starpool

I'm sure it will only concern a small number of sigs, but it can be distracting to be scrolling down a page with the mousewheel, and then nothing (apparantly) happens when you start scrolling again.

Chances are that due to the sig size restrictions in place, and the presumably small number of sigs this catches, that it is unnecessary. It will rarely be more than 1/3 of the sig not seen. Obviously is this is in tandem with allowing people to have sigs as big as they want then fair enough, but as things stand I think it is change for changes sake.

/2c

Cabaal

I'm not liking it I have to say, I didn't see a problem with the existing signature layout
The sig scrolls in this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66723721&postcount=7

Sharpshooter

I like this idea, it's very helpful.

Wolfe Tone

Yes I did not notice it stopping scrolling initially. Me no likey that.

Alanstrainor

Everyones sig is twice the size now for some reason. Even those who haven't amended theres.

Overheal

Needs some work




the field I guess is too big still.

And yes when you view the webpage at a low resolution (or less than fullscreeen) even acceptable sigs show up as scrollfields.

DeVore

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Everyones sig is twice the size now for some reason. Even those who haven't amended theres.

Can you explain this one? Also what browser and OS are you using (for debugging purposes).

DeV.

Ghost Train

Seems to depend on my zoom setting in Firefox. If I have a page zoomed some signatures have scrolling

Alanstrainor

DeVore wrote: »

Can you explain this one? Also what browser and OS are you using (for debugging purposes).

DeV.

Well it's not quite everyones, but there's an example. I'm using chrome and windows 7 64bit. I also tested this on my Nokia N900 running Maemo and the browser is microb, which is based on firefox.

RuggieBear

interesting.

Eoin

I think it would be better to just clip the content than to add scrollbars.

RuggieBear

or perhaps just not allow it to display if over the set parameters (if that is even possible/workable

Wolfe Tone

eoin wrote: »

I think it would be better to just clip the content than to add scrollbars.

Yeah, clip the content. They are frustrating, you don't get a smooth scroll down the screen now.

RobertFoster

It's doing funny things to my eyes.

I mainly click and drag the scroll bar as it's quicker/quieter than using the scroll wheel all the time. This now seems to be causing a slight lag as sigs try to keep up with the rest of the page. Scrolling either direction causes about half a line delay, so the last line of a post is cut in half and flickers when scrolling down and the sig itself drags behind and then snaps into place when scrolling up.

It also causes the Beta navbar across the top to flicker when it's dragged over sigs.

Happens in FF 3.5.10 on Win7 64 bit;
Doesn't happen in IE 8.0.7600.16385, Opera 10.54, Safari 5.0, Chrome 5.0.375.99

Sully

Scrolls? No thanks. Awful looking.

Just snip the content.

JohnK

I'd be in favour of just clipping the sigs at the max allowable size rather than the scrollbars, I think it would look a bit neater and might make people more likely size their sigs appropriately if they know its just going to be clipped.

On a side note, if I'm not logged in I don't see any sigs at all.

Eoin

RuggieBear wrote: »

or perhaps just not allow it to display if over the set parameters (if that is even possible/workable

I reckon that would be hard enough to do; or would at least involve a lot of client side scripting that would be a bit of overkill.

Setting overflow: hidden in the CSS would just not display any content that goes over the boundaries.

Gordon

Initial thought is to clip the content but what happens when someone puts a longcat in their sig, we can't see it's massive but it's causing people's webpages to load slowly, because it is clipped?

Sully

Gordon wrote: »

Initial thought is to clip the content but what happens when someone puts a longcat in their sig, we can't see it's massive but it's causing people's webpages to load slowly, because it is clipped?

Still allow reports for such sigs. I assume the longcat is an image - can they not check the size in that area and removed those over the limit?

My name is URL

You can already limit the size & dimensions of sigs if they're uploaded to the site and displayed through [sigpic]

Wolfe Tone

My name is URL wrote: »

You can already limit the size & dimensions of sigs if they're uploaded to the site and displayed through [sigpic]

But what happens if you want to include text in them like in my sig? or links?

My name is URL

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But what happens if you want to include text in them like in my sig? or links?

It can still be done through the Sig menu - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/profile.php?do=editsignature

Wolfe Tone

My name is URL wrote: »

It can still be done through the SigPic feature - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/profile.php?do=editsignature

Thats the way I did mine...

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I like this idea, it's very helpful.

I take that back, it's a pain in the backside when scrolling down the page.

Keano

Not liking the idea at all.

Wolfe Tone

Is doing my head in now.

Eoin

Gordon wrote: »

Initial thought is to clip the content but what happens when someone puts a longcat in their sig, we can't see it's massive but it's causing people's webpages to load slowly, because it is clipped?

Scrollbars or no scrollbars won't make a difference there though.

Checking for large images is easy, it's the combination of text and images or just too much text that might be harder to cater for - because then I think you have to work out the computed height of a div and I don't know how easy that is?

Tallon

Scroll bar in the sig is maaaaaad weird

Gaspode

I cant see that it makes any difference to my overall viewing experience on Boards from the few big sigs I've come across so far.

It doesn't affect scrolling down the page, and if someones sig is half-hidden, so what. To me that just means their sig was too big in the first place!
This might get users into the habit of having shorter sigs.

(BTW I'm using google Chrome 6 and/or IE 8, screen settings 1280x1024)

Jay P

Tallon wrote: »

Scroll bar in the sig is maaaaaad weird

I'm just gonna echo this. It's strange.

I'd prefer the system already in place, the SigPo.

Ludo

Nope...not a good idea I am afraid. Sounded good when I saw the announcement but was really annoying and distracting when reading threads. It only draws attention to the sigs now as the page stops scrolling while the sigs scroll. Far more annoying than big sigs.

It you can add scroll bars when a sig is over a certain size then why not just not show them if it is over a certain size instead. People will get the message then.

Eoin

Gaspode wrote: »

It doesn't affect scrolling down the page, and if someones sig is half-hidden, so what.

It does affect scrolling down the page on a laptop with a scrollbar on the touchpad.

Gordon

It is a tad annoying having the scrollbars everywhere!

KoolKid

Gordon wrote: »

It is a tad annoying having the scrollbars everywhere!

I agree.
Can't see myself scrolling down to see someones sig.
Are there going to be some lay offs now in the Sig Police Force?
Has this been discussed with the unions..:rolleyes::D

Owen

It's appauling. I've never seen a seriously offensive signature that required mammoth scrolling - is this just policy for policy's sake? Boards is turning into the Green Party :pac:

pickarooney

No. It's ugly and my page-down scroll is interpreted as sig-down scroll far too often depending on where my mouse pointer is located.

P. Breathnach

Tallon wrote: »

Scroll bar in the sig is maaaaaad weird

It wouldn't be a problem if your sig were smaller.

calex71

Looks awful imo (just my view dont shoot ), I think either leave it as is or enforce a size. If some one needed a big one for a valid reason such as fund raising for charity perhaps then they could request a bigger one?

Not even sure thats possible or practical even

I and am sure others would not shed many tears if we were forced to reduce the size.

Wolfe Tone

Change it baccccckkk!!!!!

Please.

Rovi

I think the whole intention is that they'll look 'awful' and 'ugly' and 'appalling'; it might encourage people to re-think their signature and make it fit the dimensions.

Of course, it'll only actually work if they're using the Beta skin...

Gordon

PaintDoctor wrote: »

is this just policy for policy's sake?

No, it's not.

Eoin

Rovi wrote: »

I think the whole intention is that they'll look 'awful' and 'ugly' and 'appalling'; it might encourage people to re-think their signature and make it fit the dimensions.

I hope that's not the thinking behind it - seems a bit unfair to punish people looking at the sig. Also, if someone doesn't already have a problem with a large sig, they probably won't mind scrollbars either.

So - can we give it a go with the overflow hidden, instead of scrolling?

Rovi

eoin wrote: »

So - can we give it a go with the overflow hidden, instead of scrolling?

I think that would be the best option, if it was technically feasible.
Ideally, a fixed pixel height x width, enforced at the 'Edit Signature' level.

GLaDOS

Good idea in theory, but I'm not a fan. Worth a shot all the same though.

Eoin

I'm pretty sure it's a one-liner change that needs doing:

.sig{
	max-height: 150px;
	max-width: 100%;
	overflow: [s]auto[/s] hidden;
}

Owen

Gordon wrote: »

PaintDoctor wrote:

Is this just policy for policy's sake?

No, it's not.

When was the last time someone has a really large offensive sig? The old sig rules were fine. Occassionally some muppet would have a 25k jpg instead of a 20k, but it was never the end of the world. Sometimes someone'd have an animated gif and it would be deleted, but in my time on boards, I've never seen a ridiculously big sig that would warrant such an overhaul of the rules on signatures. IMO, this entire excercise is pointless.